Bob Stepno's Other Journalism Weblog
Explorations of personal and community journalism...
Traditional, Alternative, Online...
The new TAO of newspapers?























Subscribe to "Bob Stepno's Other Journalism Weblog" in Radio UserLand.

Click to see the XML version of this web page.

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Monday, March 1, 2004
 

Many Hundreds of Thousands Creating Daily Content?

The Pew Center's survey report, Content Creation Online, is getting headlines and blog blurbs like "44% of U.S. Internet users have contributed their thoughts and their files to the online world," but it will take me a while to get around to making sense of the details in the actual report. A lot of the 53 million people in question are posting photos and music files, which may not be personal creations. They probably don't contribute much to the "public sphere," even if they do contribute a great deal to information-sharing within families and among friends.

At first glance, I suspect a lot of blogging (or journalism) about the report will miss the "methodology" section, particularly the possibly significant dates of the main research -- conducted almost a year ago, before Howard Dean put campaign-weblogging in the public eye. (Yes, blogs have been around much longer, but I suspect the word really got out in the past year.)
"Telephone interviews were conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates between March 12 and March 19 and then from April 29-May 20, 2003 among a sample of 2,515 adults, 18 and older. " [ref]

Here's Pew's own press release, which uses that "44%... have contributed" line as its headline, and follows it with:
"More than 53 million American adults have used the Internet to publish their thoughts, respond to others, post pictures, share files and otherwise contribute to the explosion of content available online."

Here's the Associated Press story based on it:
"Despite the potential of turning every Internet user into a publisher, relatively few have created Web journals called blogs and even fewer do so with regularly, a new study finds."

I suspect that some bloggers will read that choice of angle as "old media" looking to malign the new participatory journalism of blogging. I'd say it's really just the eternal search for an "out of the ordinary (ooo)" angle. If the current buzz is that "blogging is the next big thing," then the "ooo" angle is "Not so big after all!"

Here's what the report's own summary says (highlighting added):
The Pew Internet Project has asked in its surveys at various times during 2003 and early 2004 about blogging. Those polls of Internet users have shown that somewhere between 2% and 7% of American Internet users have created blogs and about 11% of Internet users are blog readers. These are not hugely impressive figures, but they are hardly trivial. They mean that anywhere from 3 million to nearly 9 million Americans have created these diaries.

Some people taking the survey might have balked at the word "weblog" for one reason or another. Elsewhere in the 16-page report, there's an estimate that 15 million Americans have some kind of website, and that 28% of them "freshen the content" at least once a week, 4% "several times a day." I haven't gone off to crunch a lot of these numbers myself, but even a casual (conservative?) look would put that at 600,000 very active Web writers.

That might not sound like a huge number the way people like to throw around stats in the millions. However, consider that there are fewer than 1,500 daily newspapers in the country. Those include small dailies that would be lucky to have a few dozen writers, including the ones cranking out obits, wedding announcements and the school lunch menu columns. So that unimpressive 600,000 daily Web writers is about 400 for every newspaper, maybe 10 amateurs to every professional journalist.

Unfortunately, the "never screw up on a slow news day" rule applied to the Sunday release of the Pew report -- which the Associated Press put on the wire with no mention of the total number of Internet users, just a lame observation that "relatively few" are active bloggers. That should have set a huge red flag waving over editors' heads, saying "relative to what?"

The sloppiness is inexcusable, even though the timing of this story coincided with the second-string Sunday shift. On a weekday, I like to think more editors would have caught the missing total-Web-users figure and sent the writer back to the Pew report (or at least the Pew press release!) for details. At least some wire desks corrected a typo in the lead, changing "regularly" to "regularity." (CNN, Editor & Publisher, etc.) But even they still didn't bother to insert a total to put that "relatively few" in perspective. Dumb!

The Pew study itself is still worth a look. So is Precision Journalism, a book those professionals on the wire desks should have read years ago to learn how to handle polls and statistics... It's also available in old-fashioned print once again, after being online-only for a few years. Come to think of it, I should read it again myself.

I've probably misplaced a decimal point or made some other terrible mistake in this little essay myself, trying to write it with half my brain while the other half was learning some scripting tricks in an MIT classroom. If you see where I've gone wrong, add a comment...

Coincidentally, my RSS aggregator brought in several other items about online communication today, included below with little or no editing by me:

1:13:56 PM    comment []

Online Advertising Bounces Back as Animations Increase. Online advertising rebounded in 2003, according to a new report, which cites growth in ad spending by Fortune 500 companies. By Susan Stellin. [New York Times: Technology]
1:12:29 PM    comment []

Online Publishing and Libel Insurance. In many ways, online publishers face even greater liability risks than traditional media. Most, for instance, do not have attorneys standing ready to review potentially defamatory stories in advance of publication, as many offline publications do. The need to publish in "Internet time" further increases the risks for online publishers.  By Michael Rothberg, with Bloggers Are Liable for Libel Suits by Sam Byassee. [Online Journalism Review]

J.D. Lasica Posts Book Outline. Online journalist J.D. Lasica is writing a book about the clash between entertainment companies and online technologies, from file-sharing to "participatory media." He recently posted the outline with a request for feedback. "My initial impression is that this will be a terrific read,"says Dan Gillmor's eJournal


12:46:48 PM    comment []

Got a Book in You? Traditional booksellers and publishers are exploring print-on-demand ("P.O.D.") self-publishing. This inheritor of the vanity press and survivor of the dot-com implosion, makes it feasible - technologically and economically - to produce one copy of a book. Pioneers include Random House, Barnes & Noble and now Borders. By Gayle Feldman. [New York Times: Technology]

(Note: Besides new authors self-publishing, see what Brewster Kahle has done with his Internet Archive Bookmobile project and copyright-free books.)

Domain Names Are Big Again. Dot-com domain names are fetching respectable prices again, after more than three years of attracting scant interest. Some are crossing the million-dollar threshold. By Bob Tedeschi. [New York Times: Technology]

12:43:18 PM    comment []

Extra! Extra! Read All About You. Most newspapers have given up the idea of charging money to view their websites. Increasingly, however, they're asking readers to provide personal information in exchange for their content. By Joanna Glasner. [Wired News]
12:37:01 PM    comment []


Click here to visit the Radio UserLand website. © Copyright 2008 Bob Stepno.
Last update: 7/19/08; 12:54:02 PM.
March 2004
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      
Feb   Apr